Here are some general guidelines about how to structure your presentation. Please remember that this is just a guide and that your actual presentation may be quite different depending on your topic, format or personal presentation style. The timings are based on a 10 minute presentation. Each presentation should have two clear stages: · (1-2 mins) An introduction, this is where you will briefly describing your real-life situation and introduce the ‘knowledge issue’ or TOK question that you have extracted from it – this will usually involve asking a very ‘high level’ question about knowledge and explaining why this is a significant or important question to ask. · (8-9 mins) The development, a detailed exploration of the knowledge issue / TOK question that you have extracted from the real-life situation, this will usually involve you looking at different ways in which your question might be answered and the implications that these have. In addition, although it is not as important here as it is in the essay, you might want to consider what people would say to argue against you and how you might respond – all of this must be clearly linked back to your original knowledge issue / TOK question Introduction: · briefly state what the presentation is about, give an overview of the real life situation you have chosen to look at but do not go into great detail – you should aim to have just enough so that people understand what’s going on; · it is usually a good idea to have a clear title that is a question about a knowledge issue – e.g. ‘How can we know that …’ or ‘What role does emotion play in ….’ or ‘How is the concept of proof different in thehuman and natural sciences?’; · clearly state why your issue is significant; · you might briefly introduce the knowledge issues / perspectives that you will be exploring in the presentation; · remember to keep all of this really brief because overly long intros can lead to some really boring presentations. Development: You have two main choices when structuring your presentation, neither method is better than the other and both can allow you to access the top marks: · Argumentative – you can structure your presentation as an argument between two sides (obviously this will be more effective if you are working in a pair) and in this case one person may begin by outlining a perspective or knowledge issue and the second might then interrupt and argue back or offer an alternative view, argument or interpretation to which the first person might then respond … and so on. If you choose this structure you have to be careful to ensure that it doesn’t just descend into a yes / no debate but that each step in the argument reveals new ideas and issues. · Step by Step – alternatively you might like to assign each member of the team one particular perspective or knowledge issue to be responsible for and they can then explore this issue by themselves completely before moving on to the next member of the team and their issue. This means they will be responsible for identifying and responding to any flaws, limitations or alternative views and interpretations of their perspective / knowledge issue Regardless of the structure that you choose you will need to do the following: Explore a number of perspectives or knowledge issues; Remember that ‘perspectives’ could mean a different person’s opinion or point of view on the topic but a more sophisticated view of perspectives might include considering your issue from the ‘perspective’ of different AOKs or WOKs and comparing these with one another; Remember also that ‘knowledge issues’ could mean something simple like one of the BLURS but a more sophisticated version of knowledge issues might include exploring how a certain knowledge word like truth, proof, beauty or certainty works in the different AOKs or how the different WOKs work together to create knowledge in different situations; Explore each knowledge issue / perspective in detail – this will involve going beyond simply explaining the perspective / issue itself and you will also need to go on to consider any problems, issues, flaws, shortfalls or implications that are raised when considering that particular perspective or knowledge issue; you should also attempt to respond to or evaluate the seriousness of these problems or issues; As you are doing this make sure that you explicitly point out any similarities or differences that exist between the perspectives and knowledge issues that you are exploring; Make sure you avoid falling into simple stereotypes such as ‘All Catholics think x,’ or ‘All art is based just on emotion,’ or ‘Historians always z;’ Conclusion: · you should offer a clear, probably balanced, answer to the question; · if you have not done this elsewhere, you might consider the significance of the issue; · if you have not done this elsewhere, you might consider the implications that might be drawn from the various perspectives / knowledge issues covered.